[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: Moving right along ...
Concerning draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
I am in discussion with the authors on the G-PID values. An update is needed here.
Concerning the SDH/Sonet documents I want to raise a formal issue.
We have now two documents, a document that covers ITU/ANSI standard features (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt) and a document that covers non-standard features (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt). However in Appendix 1 of the standard feature document a non standard feature (Group signals) is listed. It is even mentioned that the use of groups (AUG, STSG, ...) is not described in standards.
So this feature should be moved to the non-standards document. Otherwise the split of the documents doesn't make sense.
For the Sonet and SDH labels in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt I prefer to have the same coding for Sonet and SDH. That makes the implementation for Sonet and SDH simpler. Furthermore ITU and T1 have tried over the last years to align Sonet and SDH as much as possible. The definition of different labels for Sonet and SDH contradicts these activities.
Juergen
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2001 11:25
> An: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Betreff: Moving right along ...
>
>
> Despite the energetic subject line, we the WG chairs have been
> lax in our duties. So, here goes:
>
> Lou has submitted the latest versions of the generalized
> signaling documents quite some time ago (thanks, Lou):
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
>
> Also, Eric has posted the SONET/SDH documents (merci, Eric):
>
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
>
> All of these should have addressed the issues raised in the earlier
> versions. Please read the new versions, and send your comments to
> the list by Tuesday Oct 23. At that point, when the final round
> of comments have been addressed, these docs will go to IESG Last
> Call. If any one objects to sending these docs to IESG Last Call,
> raise your issues now.
>
> I see that the GMPLS architecture document is a CCAMP WG doc, but
> the minutes say that we should look for consensus on the list. So,
> if you think this doc *shouldn't* be a WG doc, let us know. (If we
> arrived at a consensus, remind me :-)) If nothing is heard, the doc
> will progress to WG Last Call.
>
> The docs draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt and
> draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt were under consideration to be
> CCAMP WG docs; consensus at the meeting was Yes. Please let the
> list know what your thinking is on these. (BTW, both these docs
> were to have some edits done. If the authors could do that before
> the next IETF, we can try to make more progress then.)
>
> The MIB overview doc was recently posted. Please read and comment
> to the list.
>
> The doc draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt
> was generally thought to be useful; it will be published as a
> CCAMP informational doc. This begins a two week Last Call on
> the doc, ending Tuesday Oct 30.
>
> There was no consensus on whether the GMPLS framework should be
> a CCAMP WG doc. Please indicate your pleasure.
>
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt has been posted. The thought was
> raised that this draft is close to ready for WG Last Call. Please
> review it, and let us know if you disagree.
>
> The OLI requirements doc was broadly accepted. Please let the
> list know if you think this doc should be a WG doc.
>
> It's still open whether we (the IETF) should be working on
> LMP-WDM. I urge the authors to keep on working on the doc, and
> keeping it in sync with LMP; however, we will postpone making it
> a CCAMP WG doc until the issue is resolved. Hopefully that will
> happen in Salt Lake City.
>
> There was reasonable interest in the tunnel trace requirements
> doc. Let's formalize this: do you think this should be made a
> CCAMP WG document?
>
> Summary:
>
> 1) Final comments and IESG Last Call readiness for:
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
>
> 2) Should the following documents be CCAMP WG docs?
> draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02.txt
> draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
> draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt
> draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt
> draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt
>
> 3) Comment on MIB overview.
>
> 4) Two week Last Call comments on
> draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt
>
> 5) Last Call readiness of
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt
>
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.
>